Intel Haswell to arrive in low volume until USB 3.0 issue is fixed

Intel will slowdown the ramp of its new Haswell platform until it has fixed a USB 3.0 issue in the Haswell platform that causes some relatively minor issues when a system wakes from S3 sleep mode with...

I hate to break it to you guys but every single processor ever made has some form of errata. I mean yeah this is more serious obviously, but if you think they haven't' sold you "faulty" chips in the past you're sorely mistaken.

I hate to break it to you guys but every single processor ever made has some form of errata. I mean yeah this is more serious obviously, but if you think they haven't' sold you "faulty" chips in the past you're sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.

So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.

If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.

Based on the way you're wording that, fault is a relative, maybe even opinionated term. For example, the Phenom II x6 can sometimes outperform an 8-core FX processor, where you could consider the FX to be at fault when really it just isn't optimized for that particular task; the FX isn't worse than the Phenom. In a situation like this, a more suitable word would be deficient or regression.

So, perhaps what you meant to say is every chip ever sold has deficiencies/regressions, because it is simply un-realistic to have 1 chip be good at everything.

If you really do mean that every chip has had a fault, what were the fault(s) of Sandy Bridge or Core 2 Duo or Athlon II? I'm not saying those didn't have faults, but I simply haven't heard of any. And by faults I mean in ways the chip was intended to be used, so faults in overclocking don't count.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about performance characteristics, I'm talking about processor errata. Intel documents it on the release of every stepping. Certain programming functions will literally be broken on certain processors. For instance Intel had a TLB bug in it's MMU on Core 2 which would cause hardlock ups of the processor when performing certain operations.

Here is an example of the documentation that Intel releases for programming around errata:

Most of these problems aren't seen by end users because developers are aware and make changes in order to fix, or they are fixable via bios/microcode updates. This USB3 problem I guess is more significant and cannot be fixed via these methods but by a new stepping. But to pretend like processors never have problems and Intel is just now selling a faulty chip is nonsense.

Im going to get it anyway, i dont use usb3 and hardly put cpu to sleep so its not a big deal for me.

Click to expand...

You're right.

I'm not using Sleep Mode either, nor USB 3.0 on my current motherboard. (But that's because i can't route them to my front panel) I do have a USB 3.0 External HDD and Thumb Drive tho, but i'm a patient person

I think ill just go for Haswell as soon as they are out. By that time my current CPU hits 3,5 years of age, it's time to retire.